Jason Dzubow on Political Asylum

Days after President Trump took office, he moved to implement one of his campaign promises: To bar Muslims, refugees, and others from coming to the United States. Courts were not amused, and blocked significant portions of the President's executive orders (thanks largely to the brilliant work of lawyers at the ACLU and at several states attorneys offices). The President tried again, with a new, more limited executive order ("EO"). The new EO was also severely limited by the courts.

You'd think a bunch of people in burkas would be a bit more sympathetic to Muslims.

But now, the Supreme Court has spoken, and the EO is back, at least in part. So what's the story? Here is a nice summary (with some comments by yours truly) of where we are now, courtesy of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick at the American Immigration Council (and if you want to do something to help resist the travel ban, consider donating to the AIC--they are a terrific organization that does yeoman's work in all areas of the immigration field):

"[The] the Court ruled that the government can only enforce the travel ban against foreign nationals who do not have 'a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.'

"What this means is that individuals from the six countries [Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen] will be permitted to enter the United States if they have a 'close familial relationship' with someone already here or if they have a 'formal, documented' relationship with an American entity formed 'in the ordinary course' of business. However, the Court said that such relationships cannot be established for the purpose of avoiding the travel ban. The government will likely begin applying the travel ban in the limited fashion permitted by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2017.

"Who is likely to be allowed to enter the United States?

Individuals who have valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas issued on or before June 26, 2017: These individuals are not included in the travel ban [However, it seems to me that the decision leaves open the possibility of a new EO where such people are banned, and so I am concerned about that as well].

Individuals with visas coming to live or visit with family members: The Court’s order is clear that individuals who 'wish [] to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member' have close familial relationships. The Court used both a spouse and a mother-in-law as examples of qualifying relationships, but it is unclear whether more distant relatives would qualify.

Students who have been admitted to a U.S. university, workers who have accepted offers of employment with U.S. companies, and lecturers invited to address an American audience: The Court provided these three examples of individuals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship to an American entity.

Other types of business travelers: It is unclear whether individuals with employment-based visas that do not require a petitioning employer will be able to demonstrate the requisite relationship with a U.S. entity.

Refugees: Most refugees processed overseas have family or other connections to the United States including with refugee resettlement agencies [I read this a bit more pessimistically--I do not know whether a pre-existing relationship with a resettlement agency is enough to avoid the ban]. The Court ruled that such individuals may not be excluded even if the 50,000 [person] cap on refugees has been reached or exceeded.

"Who may have trouble entering the United States?

Individuals who form bona fide relationships with individuals or entities in the United States after June 26, 2017: The Court’s decision is not clear on whether it is prospective or retrospective only. Individuals who form such relationships to avoid the travel ban are barred from entering.

Tourists: Nationals of the designated countries who are not planning to visit family members in the United States and who are coming for other reasons (including sight-seeing) may be barred from entering [I also read this more pessimistically--it seems to me that anyone from a banned country who does not merit an exception as discussed in the decision will be denied a visa, including people coming to the U.S. for business, pleasure or medical treatment]."

As I read the decision and the EO, asylum seekers who are already in the United States, as well as people who have asylum or have a green card based on asylum, are not blocked from traveling and re-entering the country. They are also not blocked from receiving additional immigration benefits (like asylum, a green card, a work permit, travel documents or naturalization). However, the proof will be in the implementation--how the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") interprets and applies the Supreme Court decision in actual, real-life cases.

In that regard, I agree with Justice Thomas, who "fear[s] that the Court's remedy will prove unworkable" and will invite a "flood of litigation." Who is a qualifying relative for purposes of this decision? Must that person be a U.S. citizen? Or can the person be a resident or an asylee (as in a refugee/asylee following-to-join petition, form I-730)? Could the qualifying relative simply be someone here on a work visa or a visitor visa? What if the person is here illegally? And what is a business relationship, and how do we know whether it is bona fide or created solely for the purpose of subverting the EO?

In short, while the Supreme Court decision is reasonably clear for some aliens, it leaves large gray areas that will require interpretation, meaning more litigation. Such litigation is expensive and time consuming, and so the Court's decision is likely to leave some people who might qualify to come here stranded, depending on how DHS implements the EO, and depending on whether they can get legal help. Overall, that's not a great situation to be in.

Finally, yesterday's decision perhaps telegraphs where the Justices will come down on the merits of the EO when they look at the case this fall (the Court's decision relates only to whether to stop implementation of the EO pending a decision on the merits). Three Justices (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) seem likely to allow a broader version of the ban to go forward. Given what we see in this decision, it may be that the other Justices are more skeptical of the ban and will limited it in some ways (and with luck, if the Trump Administration fears that the Court will limit the ban, it may just declare victory and allow the EO to expire, as originally intended).

All this remains to be seen, but for now, anyone from a banned country should pay attention to how the EO is implemented in the coming days, and perhaps avoid traveling outside the U.S. until we know more.

The People have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. He will enter office with a Republican House and Senate, though not a filibuster-proof majority, but certainly enough to enact much of his legislative/policy agenda. So what can asylum seekers, asylees, and refugees expect?Sometimes white is a very dark color.
Of course, with Mr. Trump, it's often hard to know his plan. Will he keep his campaign promises to ban Muslims? Return Syrian refugees? Build a wall? Narrow the category of people eligible for asylum (as implied by the Republican Party platform)? Can these policies even be implemented in practice? It's far too soon to know which direction Mr. Trump will go with all this, but here are some initial thoughts, not so much about what he will do, but about what he has the power to do.
Banning Muslim Immigrants: The U.S. government has the power to block most anyone from coming to the United States. In previous eras, we have excluded Chinese, Southern Europeans, Jews, and all sorts of other "undesirables." More recently, after 9-11, we enacted Special Registration for people from certain majority-Muslim nations, though this was not a ban on Muslims, just a restriction on those already here.
Also, if you have ever applied for a U.S. visa, you know that the consulates exercise almost unlimited discretion to deny visas to people deemed ineligible. For people overseas seeking a visa, it would be easy for President Trump to deny visas to applicants from majority-Muslim countries, or to those who are Muslim. This could be done even without Congressional action.
The policy implications for such a move would be unpredictable. How would the "banned" countries react? What would this mean for our diplomatic relations with those countries and our ability to cooperate with them against the war on Islamic extremists? There are also economic implications for trade, business investment, and universities that enroll (and make money from) foreign students. I imagine the competing constituencies would weigh in on the efficacy of a Muslim ban, and so it is difficult to know how this would work in practice. But President Trump will basically have the power to block Muslims who are overseas from coming to the United States.
Refugees: This past year, we accepted about 85,000 refugees. Traditionally, the plurality of refugees we accept are Christian, but in FY 2016--for the first time since FY 2006--the plurality (44%) of refugees resettled in the United States were Muslim (the Pew Research Center provides some good data on this subject). This shift reflected President Obama's response (tepid, in my opinion) to the Syrian refugee crisis. In determining how many refugees to bring to the U.S., the President consults with Congress and comes up with a number. So Mr. Trump could reduce or eliminate the number of refugees coming to the U.S., or he could shift the focus away from Muslim refugees.
Again, there are policy implications for such a move. The world is facing the worst refugee crisis since World War II. What does it mean for the character of our nation to ignore the suffering of these individuals? How will our retrenchment affect the efforts of other countries to assist refugees? How will it affect our ability to wield moral authority and to continue our role as the leader of the Free World? Or have we as a nation decided to abdicate that role?
Asylees and Muslim Refugees Who Are Already in the United States: And what about those Syrian refugees (and other refugees and asylees) who are already here and have already been granted refugee status or asylum in the United States? Deporting people who are here, with lawful status, is much more difficult than excluding people from coming here in the first place. Such people have a Constitutional right to due process of law, meaning that they cannot be deported from the U.S. without a legal procedure. Currently, that procedure involves presenting one's case to an Immigration Judge, who then determines whether the person is eligible to remain in the United States. People who have already qualified for protection under U.S. law (which is based on our ratification of various international treaties) cannot simply be removed from the country. The procedure to remove them is long, and--given that they have already qualified for protection--under current law, they cannot be deported.
For these reasons, although Mr. Trump has vowed to send Syrian refugees back, I suspect that this will not be easily accomplished. First, it would mean a change in the law, and this requires the cooperation of Congress. As mentioned, while the Republicans have a majority of seats in Congress, there is still a powerful Democratic minority that could potentially block such a change. Also, it is likely that a significant minority of Republicans would oppose changing our humanitarian laws.
And even if the law related to asylum were changed, there are several other laws that people currently in the U.S. might use to avoid removal. For example, those who fear harm as defined by the UN Convention Against Torture might assert a defense based on that treaty. Those who have been here for longer periods of time might be eligible for other forms of relief, like Cancellation of Removal or adjustment of status based on a family relationship. In short, people who are living in the U.S. and who have refugee or asylum status have several layers of protection that will likely insulate them from any effort to have them removed. And any effort to make the sweeping changes needed to force such people to leave will require unified Congressional action, something that we are unlikely to see.
Of course, if such changes could somehow be made, there are policy implications here as well. What will it mean to send back Syrian refugees (mostly women and children) to that war torn region? How will it affect our moral standing in the world? What would it mean for international law in general if we abrogate our treaty obligations? And what would be the "ripple effect" of such a policy?
People with Asylum Cases Pending: People who are in the United States with asylum cases pending also have the benefit of due process protections. They cannot be deported unless and until an Immigration Judge determines that they do not qualify to remain in the United States. Under current law, even people from majority-Muslim countries benefit from these protections--which are "rights"--under domestic and international law. To change this regime, Congressional action would be necessary. Again, it is unclear whether President Trump will have the supported needed to enact such sweeping changes in this area of law.
The bigger immediate concern for people with pending asylum cases is how the Trump Administration will allocate resources towards the asylum system. I suspect that resources will be increased for Immigration Courts (which can deport people, but which can also grant relief and allow people to stay here). I am not so optimistic about the Affirmative Asylum System--these are the Asylum Offices that review asylum cases filed by people who are in the U.S. and who fear persecution in their home country. The Affirmative Asylum System is already beleaguered by long delays, and if the new Administration diverts resources from that system, it will only slow the process further. One option for a Trump Administration might be to eliminate the Asylum Offices and send everyone to Immigration Court. How this would play out in terms of delay or efficacy, I do not know.
The Wall and Restrictions on the Definition of Particular Social Group: Finally, Donald Trump has promised to build a wall to prevent people from entering the U.S. through Mexico. This seems to me more a fanciful campaign promise than a realistic or effective means of tightening the border. So I doubt he will build an actual wall. He could however, make it more difficult for people arriving at the Southern border to seek asylum by restricting the definition of those eligible for asylum. Specifically, many people who come to the border seek asylum because they fear persecution by gangs or domestic violence (in legal terms, they are seeking asylum because they fear persecution on account of their "particular social group"). Our current system allows such people to arrive at the border, "pass" a credible fear interview, enter the U.S., and then have their cases adjudicated by an Immigration Judge. If a Trump Administration restricted the definition of particular social group, and raised the bar for credible fear interviews, it could largely shut down the border without resorting to a wall, and probably without violating our treaty obligations.
Again, of course, there are policy concerns here. If relations with Mexico sour, that country could do less to interdict migrants traveling north through it's territory. That could result in a larger refugee crisis at our border. Also, if our country closes the doors to refugees in our backyard, other countries may follow suit, and the result would be a more severe worldwide refugee crisis, and the likely deaths of many innocent people trying to escape harm.
For now, all this is conjecture. Donald Trump will not assume office for another few months. During that time, he will (presumably) begin to articulate how he will translate his promises into actual policy. Given the campaign we just witnessed, it is difficult not to be pessimistic. However, to paraphrase John Donne, No policy is an island, entire of itself. To implement changes to the humanitarian laws will implicate many other important policy areas. Perhaps--we can hope--this will help mitigate the more radical plans raised prior to the election. Here's John Donne, once more, "Any man's death diminishes me / Because I am involved in mankind / And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls / It tolls for thee." Let's hope Mr. Trump recognizes the gravity of his proposed changes, and the effect they could have on innocent lives. Let's hope.

Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to bar Muslim foreigners from the United States. More recently, he’s called for “extreme vetting” of such people. Given his pronouncements, it’s not surprising that Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers are worried. But fear not – there is an easy solution for people affected by the ban: Convert to Judaism.When Trumpette first converted, we were kvelling. Now, we're verbissen.“What!!??! How can I change my religion? I don’t know anything about Judaism,” you say. Do not fret; I am here to help. I will explain to you how to be Jewish. It’s really not that hard. Jews and Muslims are already a lot alike. We both hate pork and love hummus. We're both perpetuating the War on Christmas by wishing others, "Happy holidays." And we both really want to own Jerusalem. See, we're practically cousins.
Besides, converting to Judaism is the perfect cover. Donald Trump's own daughter converted, and he hasn't tried to ban her from anything.
So how do you “pass” as Jewish?
The first thing to know is that a Jewish person never answers a question. Instead, he responds with a question of his own, often followed by a complaint. So for example, if someone asks you, “How are you doing today?,” you don’t say, “I’m fine.” Instead, you say something like, “How should I be doing? What with my bad stomach. My fakakta doctor prescribed me some pills, but they do bubkis.” Get it? Let’s try an example in the immigration context. Here’s a common question that you might encounter:

Immigration Officer: “How many children do you have?”

Non-Jewish Answer: “Three.”

Jewish Answer: “How should I know? They never call, they never write. My youngest is running around with some shiksa. And my oldest! Don’t even get me started. I told her, ‘Go to medical school, like your cousin Herbie,’ but what does she do? Majors in Liberal Arts. Feh! Her father and I spend $50,000 a year on college so she can work as a barista. Oy, what tsuress. Just thinking about it, I'm verklempt already.

You see – It’s easy. Here’s another one. Let’s say that someone asks you a question that you want to avoid answering. One way to do that is by minimizing the importance of the question, and then making the questioner feel guilty about asking it. We Jews do that by taking the most important word in the question, replacing the first letter in the word with “schm” and then repeating it back. Often, this is followed by a reference to the Nazis. Here’s an example in the immigration context to help clarify what I mean:

Immigration Officer: “Hello sir, may I please see your visa?”

Non-Jewish Answer: “Here is my visa.”

Jewish Answer: “Visa, schmisa! Do you think I’ve been sitting on a plane squished up like a sardine for the last 12 hours just so some Himmler-wanna-be can ask for my papers? My family didn’t survive the Holocaust, not to mention the pogroms, just to have some shmendrick treat me like a gonif. Next thing you know, you’ll be deporting me to a camp. The whole thing makes me want to plotz.”

At that point, your interrogator will likely let you pass through customs just to get rid of you, which is another advantage of converting to Judaism.
OK, I think you’ve got it. But here’s one last example. This one's a bit more advanced, so pay attention. If you can master it, no one will ever question your newfound Judaism. In English, most sentences are constructed with a noun, followed by a verb. We Jews often reverse that construction. So we wouldn't say, "She is a fast driver." Instead, we might say, "Fast, she drives." But typically, we'd try to be a bit more colorful: "Fast, shmast. Like Marrio Andretti, she drives." And here it is in the immigration context:

Immigration Officer: “The fee for your green card is $1,070.”

Non-Jewish Answer: “Here is $1,070.”

Jewish Answer: “Nu? One thousand and seventy?! What am I, a Rothschild? Why don't you take my first born son while your at it. Maybe you can get some schlemiel to pony up that kind of money, but not me. Anyway, gelt like this, I don't have. Maybe the big machers can afford your fees, but not us little pishers. Now, be a mensch and hand to me your brochures about moving to Canada?"

So that's it. Look, it isn't pretty to have to convert (or pretend to convert) to survive. We Jews have done it before (remember the Spanish Inquisition and the crypto-Jews?), but I suppose it beats the alternative. Anyway, in four years, when Michelle Obama becomes president, you can always convert back.

The recent attacks in Paris have opened the floodgates of anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment in the U.S. Language that was once the province of white-supremacist screeds has become part of our mainstream dialogue. For me, however, what's worse than the xenophobia and the hate, are the lies.
The New York Times recently editorialized about Donald Trump's repeated and vile mendacity: "it’s become a full-time job just running down [his] falsehoods.... It’s no easy task for journalists to interrupt Mr. Trump with the facts, but it’s an important one."

What if cheating at politics was as dangerous as cheating at poker?Mr. Trump is a presidential contender, and thus subject to some scrutiny. But the internet abounds with lies, and given the atomized nature of social media, it's easy to immerse yourself in this fictitious and paranoid world. It's also easy and, in a way, comforting to have your own world view go unchallenged, and to believe that you are among the privileged few who knows The Truth. The Lame-stream media be damned!
There are, of course, websites devoted to correcting inaccurate internet rumors, but how can they possibly keep up with the torrent of falsehoods that daily flood our in-boxes? And even if they could respond to each phony news story, the people who accept such stories are unlikely to read—or believe—the fact-checkers.
Given the futility of the task, there’s probably little point in posting a few internet rumors here and then debunking them. But one of my two favorite fictional heroes is Don Quixote, and so I thought I might tilt at a couple of wind mills (if you must know, my other favorite fictional hero is Rocky Balboa - Yo). Anyway, here are a few "news" stories that arrived in my in-box post-Paris, and some thoughts on their veracity:
- From Brian Hayes at Right Side News: "BREAKING: They're Here! First Load of 10,000 Syrian Refugees Has Arrived in New Orleans..." Accompanying the article is a photo showing dozens of swarthy young men, looking vaguely dangerous. Have these young jihadists landed in New Orleans? Are 10,000 Muslims invading the Big Easy? No, in fact, the photo of the young men was taken in Hungary in September 2015 and has nothing to do with refugees in New Orleans. Also, while President Obama has committed to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees, very few have arrived in the U.S. What we know is that over the last four years, the U.S. has resettled a total of 2,070 Syrian refugees as part of the regular refugee admissions process. As for New Orleans, it appears that two Syrian families have arrived and one more family is expected. So much for the 10,000 young jihadists.
- From Jeffrey T. Kuhner of the World Tribune: "Obama welcomes an Islamist Trojan horse: Consider who is selecting our refugees." This article claims that under the President's plan "millions [of refugees] could be allowed to flood our country" and that "the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees... in coordination with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation... selects which refugees can be settled within our country." It also states that "Mr. Obama now poses a clear and present danger to America [because of his] stubborn insistence on resettling so-called 'refugees' from Syria." Where to even begin with this nonsense? First, 10,000 ≠ 1,000,000. Mr. Obama has been president for almost seven years. Until the recent announcement about the 10,000 Syrian refugees, he has continued the same refugee policy as President Bush. So don't try to tell me that all of sudden, in his final year in office, somehow "millions" of refugees will arrive on our shores. Second, while refugees are often referred to the U.S. by UNHCR, the United States (through the State Department, DHS, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement) conducts the background checks and decides which refugees to accept. Neither the Organization of Islamic Cooperation nor the UN decides which refugees will be allowed to resettle in our country. Finally, what the hell is a "so-called" refugee? I suppose the implication is that the people fleeing the Syrian civil war are not really refugees. Maybe the whole "so-called" civil war in Syria is just a farce to send jihadists to the West. They sure put on a good show, those Syrians.
- From Andrew C. McCarthy in the National Review: "Refugee 'Religious Test' Is 'Shameful' and 'Not American' ... Except that Federal Law Requires It." Mr. McCarthy writes--

Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

In reality, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 states that, in order to qualify as a refugee, a person must establish that she faces persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. It is not a religious test at all. If you fear persecution on account of religion (any religion-including Islam), or any other protected ground, you can qualify for asylum. Either Mr. McCarthy has no understanding of the Immigration law or--more likely--he is twisting the language of the law into something it is not. Either way, he has no business writing about this subject.
Professional liars like Mr.Hayes, Mr. Kuhner, and Mr. McCarthy clearly have an agenda--to inflame passions against Muslim refugees. They create an alternate reality where President Obama is "willing to potentially sacrifice countless Americans on the altar of liberal multiculturalism [and] is gambling with our lives." Well then, it sounds like he must be stopped--by any means necessary.
But of course the "alternate reality" described above is not reality. It is a false story, planted to paint Mr. Obama as a "clear and present danger" to our republic. Had Mssrs. Hayes, Kuhner, and McCarthy bothered with the facts, they would have found a much more nuanced situation, where reasonable people can disagree on policy, and where no one is evil.
The danger of all this should be obvious. When we falsely label other Americans as the enemy, when we use inflammatory and divisive language, and when we forgo efforts at understanding those who disagree with us, we damage our democracy and impoverish our national debate. In the black-and-white world of the fear-mongers, it makes sense to open fire on a Planned Parenthood Clinic. And if "so-called refugees" are actually disguised jihadists, wouldn't it make sense to subject them to the same treatment?
Reality is complicated and messy. The straw men we create to comfort and enrage ourselves rarely comport with reality. There are legitimate grounds to oppose refugee resettlement, and the more rationale opponents of refugees rely on such arguments. But that is not what we are talking about here. There are far too many liars and charlatans involved in the refugee debate. Their false alarms are designed to turn Americans against each other. And that is a real threat.

Since the vicious attack last week by Muslim extremists in Paris, attention in the U.S. has focused on our country’s refugee policy and President Obama’s decision earlier this year to admit an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees (above the normal refugee ceiling of 70,000). More than half of the nation’s governors have indicated that Syria refugees are unwelcome in their states. Paul Ryan, the new Speaker of the House, is pushing legislation to hinder the admission of Syrian and Iraqi refugees. And most Republican presidential candidates have expressed their opposition to resettling Syrian or Muslim refugees in our country. Senator Ted Cruz has called the plan “absolute lunacy.”

When we say "no" to a refugee, what does it say about us?As an immigration attorney who specializes in political asylum, I represent clients whose lives have been profoundly disrupted by war and terrorism, who have been threatened or harmed by extremists, and who have lost loved ones to terrorist attacks. Many of my clients come from Muslim countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt. These are people who have devoted their lives--and often risked their lives--to promote democracy, women's rights, and human rights. Many have served shoulder-to-shoulder with soldiers from the U.S. military in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, I suspect that many of my Muslim clients have risked and sacrificed far more in the defense of liberty and in support of U.S. policy than the American commentators who routinely disparage them.

In the face of barbarism from ISIS and other extremists, we as Americans should not abandon our friends or shrink from our humanitarian commitments. As the leader of the Free World, we must lead not only with the sword. We must also lead by demonstrating our values, and by showing the world that we do not abandon those values in difficult times.

During the refugee crisis that followed World War II, the U.S. committed itself to assisting displaced persons. Since then, we’ve absorbed—and been enriched by—tens of thousands of refugees from Western Europe, the Soviet Union, Indochina, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. We are, to a great extent, defined by our generosity towards the dispossessed: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Allowing ourselves to be intimidated into compromising these humanitarian values would be a victory for the terrorists. It would mean that we gave in to our fears. Great nations are not bullied by ignorant thugs. We already have strong safeguards in place to identify potential terrorists and criminals, and prevent them from coming to our country. Indeed, our asylum and refugee programs are probably more secure than any other aspect of our immigration system.

Also, many of the Muslims who have sought sanctuary in the U.S. are people who worked with the United States military or government, or who worked for international NGOs and companies in concert with our efforts (however imperfect) at nation-building. Such people risked their lives and trusted us. To abandon them would send a message that America does not stand by its friends. This is a message that we cannot afford to send. If we are not trustworthy, no one will cooperate with us going forward.

Finally, allowing terrorists to drive a wedge between our country and moderate Muslims would make the world more dangerous. There will be fewer bridges, not more. We need to keep strengthening ties between the West and the Muslim World. The terrorists want to cut those ties; we cannot let them.

In the aftermath of the Paris attack and the claim by ISIS that it will send infiltrators to the West disguised as asylum seekers, the desire to re-examine security procedures is understandable. But as we evaluate our humanitarian policies, we should keep in mind people like my clients and the many Muslims who have demonstrated their fealty to us in our fight against extremism.

We should not allow the evil deeds in France to cause us to retreat from our humanitarian obligations, which would compromise our principles, or to weaken our commitment to our Muslim allies, who are crucial in our battle against Islamic terrorists. Many people in the Muslim World want change. We saw that in the Arab Spring. We need to align ourselves with such people and give them our support. We need to stay engaged with the world and not retreat. When considering Muslim refugees and asylum seekers, we should be guided by our highest ideals, not by the dark vision of our enemies.